Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TSA's Head of Security 'Removed' from Office

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 167 posts

Re: TSA's Head of Security 'Removed' from Office

#111

Post by chickenbane »

marze wrote: post #103
btilly wrote: post #92

Can we just get rid of the TSA? Current estimates are that hundreds of people die each year in car accidents because they chose to drive rather than deal with TSA lines. This means that every few years the TSA manages to inflict more casualties than 9/11 did. In addition to inconvenience, economic inefficiency, and a demonstrably ineffective screening process that weapons can easily get through. (As many have shown.)…

This is naive. Why would you assume the same number of successful attacks on air travel would occur without the security? You can't argue that the current system hasn't done well, it has performed fantastically, based on the number of successful attacks within the US. That said, they need a lot more screeners, and to be much more polite. And get rid of incompetent management.

I think it's a safe assumption, because if the TSA actually found a terrorist through its screening process they would parade this achievement in front of every news organization it could.

On the other hand, there have been numerous documented cases where people have deliberately snuck banned items through the TSA security checks.

Of course, you had to qualify statement that the TSA "has performed fantastically" with the number of _successful_ attacks. There have been terrorists that have attempted attacks, such as the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber, but those were all stopped by the passengers. To me, this should have warranted a congratulations to our fellow citizens for being vigilant - and maybe even a relaxation of some of the rules. As you know, the opposite occurred, and now we have to take our shoes off and can only take small amounts of liquid. Who's being naive?

Re: TSA's Head of Security 'Removed' from Office

#112

Post by ryan606 »

Security has been privatized at a few airports, like San Francisco and Kansas City. How does security screening effectiveness, efficiency, and cost compare at those two airports relative to all other TSA-operated US airport security? I haven't seen any side by side comparisons -- does anyone know if any reputable journalists or researchers have tried to compare?

Re: TSA's Head of Security 'Removed' from Office

#113

Post by laxatives »

marze wrote: post #103
btilly wrote: post #92

Can we just get rid of the TSA? Current estimates are that hundreds of people die each year in car accidents because they chose to drive rather than deal with TSA lines. This means that every few years the TSA manages to inflict more casualties than 9/11 did. In addition to inconvenience, economic inefficiency, and a demonstrably ineffective screening process that weapons can easily get through. (As many have shown.)…

This is naive. Why would you assume the same number of successful attacks on air travel would occur without the security? You can't argue that the current system hasn't done well, it has performed fantastically, based on the number of successful attacks within the US. That said, they need a lot more screeners, and to be much more polite. And get rid of incompetent management.

By that logic, I've done a fantastic job getting the sun to rise every morning. Where is my taxpayer money?

Re: TSA's Head of Security 'Removed' from Office

#114

Post by dimino »

zentiggr wrote: post #83
dimino wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The TSA provides value, security theater has its place.

Keep the sheeple thinking that something is being done while providing low wage jobs for what is being promoted as critical safety personnel? Orwell would just look at this, shrug and say "I was trying to say..."

You've lost when you start saying words like "sheeple" and "Orwell" in these conversations, you realize that right?

Re: TSA's Head of Security 'Removed' from Office

#115

Post by basseq »

marze wrote: post #103
btilly wrote: post #92

Can we just get rid of the TSA? Current estimates are that hundreds of people die each year in car accidents because they chose to drive rather than deal with TSA lines. This means that every few years the TSA manages to inflict more casualties than 9/11 did. In addition to inconvenience, economic inefficiency, and a demonstrably ineffective screening process that weapons can easily get through. (As many have shown.)…

This is naive. Why would you assume the same number of successful attacks on air travel would occur without the security? You can't argue that the current system hasn't done well, it has performed fantastically, based on the number of successful attacks within the US. That said, they need a lot more screeners, and to be much more polite. And get rid of incompetent management.

How many attacks were stopped by the TSA? Directly: 0. Hell, they're 0/2 on known attempts (the Shoe Bomber in 2001 and Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in 2009), both thwarted instead by passengers and crew.

Indirectly? (E.g., how many attacks weren't planned because of the TSA that would have been planned and executed otherwise?) Very hard to say. Have law enforcement officials seen an uptick in other terror channels that would indicate terrorist plots are avoiding air travel?

Are any would-be terrorists abandoning their terror plans altogether because of the TSA? Surely not. So all the TSA is doing is shifting attacks from air travel to other channels. That's a net zero.

And finally, at what cost?

Re: TSA's Head of Security 'Removed' from Office

#116

Post by Frondo »

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #97
chrisper wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In CA you can make an appointment. I made one and was in and out in 20 minutes.

But appointments are available only two weeks from now. Sometimes people have urgent issues that they cannot prepare for two weeks ahead. And even if it's their own fault, why should they be punished for it?

Waiting for a service isn't punishment.

Re: TSA's Head of Security 'Removed' from Office

#117

Post by blisterpeanuts »

zeveb wrote: post #58
marcus_holmes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we can work this out. Everyone in the USA has the right to bear arms, and a lot of them do. Result: huge murder rate. Everyone in the rest of the world does not have the right to carry guns around the place. Result: much smaller murder rate. I think we can infer that if everyone could take guns on planes then we'd have more people shooting guns on planes and hence more death on planes. Going from that to stop…

> Everyone in the USA has the right to bear arms, and a lot of them do. Result: huge murder rate. The rate of murders committed by folks legally carrying guns is low; the rate of murders committed by Americans using weapons other than firearms is high. It's almost as though Americans in general are more violent than people in many other parts of the world.

The murder rates, weapons used, and ethnicities of murderers and victims are well documented; see the FBI's own statistics (bjs.gov) for the details.

In summary, most law abiding gun owners in the U.S. don't commit homicide. Among whites, guns are most likely to be used for suicide.

Among blacks, guns are most likely to be used for homicide, and most of their victims are also black. In fact out of about 11,000 gun homicides per year, over 6000 are black-on-black shootings, mostly males 16-39, mostly urban ghetto gang members. Thus, less than 1% of the U.S. population commits over half the gun homicides (Hispanics have the next largest share).

If you control for the unfortunate murder rates in the ghetto areas, actually the per capita gun violence in the U.S. is almost the same as Canada and western Europe, maybe 1% higher but certainly not warranting the kind of stereotyping that inevitably accompanies any discussion about gun crime in America. Except for a few neighborhoods, most American cities today are as safe as, or actually safer than those of Europe.

You can argue with some validity that guns are too easy for gangs to obtain, but that's really separate from what we're talking about here which is lawful carry.

Re: TSA's Head of Security 'Removed' from Office

#118

Post by dragonwriter »

ancap wrote: post #94
dragonwriter wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those weren't neocons driving those cuts (neocons position in the Republican Party -- and thus national politics -- peaked under Bush and rapidly receded after he left office.)

One point of correction is that neocons are in both major US political parties and are know chiefly by their [chicken-]hawk-ish foreign policy.

There are few, if any, neoconservatives in the Democratic Party (there are hawkish neoliberal internationalists in both parties, though, and the distinctions between those and neoconservatives are fairly fine.)

Re: TSA's Head of Security 'Removed' from Office

#119

Post by blisterpeanuts »

ivraatiems wrote: post #105
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Israeli profiling is far more sophisticated than "blatant racial profiling" as the above commenter baselessly claims. For one thing, many Jews in Israel are of Middle Eastern origin and appear identical to Muslim Arabs. The Israelis use several layers of profiling: a preliminary sweep as you are checking in, which assigns you a particular "risk level" based on your country of origin, profession, behavior, and other d…

Your own article contradicts your suggestion that my claim is "baseless." > As Lia Tarachansky wrote back in 2010 for Mondoweiss, while a one rating "is awesome," a six indicates that "you're f-----." It appears to be reserved for Palestinians, Muslims, and hostile internationals. Palestinians and Muslims? That's ethnic and religious profiling, and together I think you could call it racial as well. And yes, Israeli A…

You don't "like" the fact that Israel's airport security works? And is the best in the world? Sucks to be you. I'd rather live in a safe world, than in a politically correct one.

And guess what. I'll bet 3,000 people who died on 9/11 would agree with me. Those guys were tagged by Mossad and German intelligence, yet the U.S. agencies all but ignored them. Maybe they were concerned about singling out Arabs, maybe they didn't want to offend the Saudis. Regardless, all those people died anyway. And I posit that we're not one bit safer today except for one difference: the passengers will never allow another such hijacking.

Re: TSA's Head of Security 'Removed' from Office

#120

Post by zeveb »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #89
zeveb wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone in the USA has the right to bear arms, and a lot of them do. Result: huge murder rate. The rate of murders committed by folks legally carrying guns is low; the rate of murders committed by Americans using weapons other than firearms is high. It's almost as though Americans in general are more violent than people in many other parts of the world.

I had to re-read that twice before I got the meaning... I was thinking "hang on, so everyone carries guns but knife murders are up? what?" but what I think you're saying is that law-abiding people don't shoot people. Well, duh... There's this really straightforward clear correlation between number of guns and amount of gun violence. Everyone else in the world gets this. Americans don't for some reason. I'm always cur…

> what I think you're saying is that law-abiding people don't shoot people. Well, duh...

No, OP complains that in the U.S. 'everyone' can carry firearms legally (not actually true: felons, wife-beaters, citizens of New Jersey & similar folks are prohibited from carrying firearms) and thus we have a high murder rate. I pointed out that the issue is not the legal right, since the folks committing the murders are not, for the most part, legally armed.

> I'm always curious why Americans don't get this.

There's this really straightforward clear correlation between arms-bearing and liberty (viz.: an unarmed man is fundamentally not free). Americans seem to get this; many other folks don't for some reason. I'm always curious why not.

Post reply on HN